{"id":5746,"date":"2026-10-07T16:30:23","date_gmt":"2026-10-07T16:30:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/?p=5746"},"modified":"2026-10-07T16:30:47","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T16:30:47","slug":"encampment-in-the-quad-federal-court-removes-campus-ban-on-pro-palestine-protestors-at-unc-ch%ef%bf%bc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/encampment-in-the-quad-federal-court-removes-campus-ban-on-pro-palestine-protestors-at-unc-ch%ef%bf%bc\/","title":{"rendered":"Encampment in the Quad: Federal Court Removes Campus Ban on Pro-Palestine Protestors at UNC-CH\ufffc"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>By: Gabriel Roberts, Vol. 24 Staff Writer<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img loading=\"lazy\" width=\"648\" height=\"350\" src=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2026\/10\/image.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-5747\" srcset=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2026\/10\/image.png 648w, https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2026\/10\/image-300x162.png 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 648px) 100vw, 648px\" \/><figcaption><a href=\"https:\/\/www.newsobserver.com\/news\/local\/counties\/orange-county\/article297376089.html\">Image Source<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Campus bans from the 2024 pro-Palestine protests have been lifted across the United States, and this time, it\u2019s at the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wral.com\/news\/education\/judge-unc-allow-protesters-return-campus-chapel-hill-february-2026\/\">University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill<\/a>. In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\"><em>Dames v. Roberts<\/em><\/a>, the Middle District of North Carolina issued an injunction that removed campus bans for three protestors. In this case, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.carolinajournal.com\/judge-blocks-uncs-ban-against-protesters-tosses-part-of-their-suit\/\">the Plaintiffs<\/a> were four individuals: students at UNC-CH, Duke University, Meredith University, and a professor at Duke University. The Plaintiffs are <a href=\"https:\/\/www.carolinajournal.com\/judge-blocks-uncs-ban-against-protesters-tosses-part-of-their-suit\/\">represented<\/a> by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.acluofnorthcarolina.org\/press-releases\/judge-orders-unc-to-list-campus-bans-for-protesters\/\">ACLU of North Carolina<\/a>, Emancipate NC, and Muslim Advocates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Prompted by the <a href=\"https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/gaza-war-campus-protests-966eb531279f8e4381883fc5d79d5466\">Israel-Gaza Conflict<\/a>, Students for Justice in Palestine held \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">sporadic protests<\/a>\u201d at the University. On April 26th, 2024, the protestors started an encampment at Polk\u2019s Place, a grassy quad on campus surrounded by other academic and administrative facilities. The camp, akin to those at <a href=\"https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/gaza-war-campus-protests-966eb531279f8e4381883fc5d79d5466\">Columbia University<\/a>, was meant to \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">express solidarity<\/a>\u201d with Palestine.<br>The University wanted to accommodate the protestors; they listened to their concerns. However, the camp was deemed <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">disruptive and violated<\/a> the University\u2019s policies:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">University\u2019s outdoor public spaces<\/a> on campus are open to everyone, but they must adhere to university polices.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The <a href=\"https:\/\/policies.unc.edu\/TDClient\/2833\/Portal\/KB\/ArticleDet?ID=132134\">Freedom of Speech and Expression Standard<\/a> provides the University may restrict speech that \u201cmaterially and substantially disrupts\u201d functions.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The <a href=\"https:\/\/policies.unc.edu\/TDClient\/2833\/Portal\/KB\/PrintArticle?ID=131343\">Facilities Use Policy<\/a> bans temporary structures on campus unless the University approves them.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/policies.unc.edu\/TDClient\/2833\/Portal\/KB\/ArticleDet?ID=131863\">Demonstrative Events Policy<\/a> provides that individuals that occupy an outdoor space on campus are subject to arrest and trespass when they ignore the University\u2019s request for them to leave. On April 28th, the camp was operational at Polk\u2019s Place. The protestors were aware they had violated the University\u2019s policies, but they simply refused to communicate with the University. Administration became concerned about safety and disruptions. Indeed, <a href=\"https:\/\/registrar.unc.edu\/spring-2024\/\">final exams and graduation<\/a> were around the corner. Moreover, UNC-CH students had reported \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">feeling intimidated<\/a>,\u201d and the campus was \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">more difficult<\/a>\u201d to cross. Not only that, but the camp led to property damage and waste accumulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Reasoning<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In short, the Middle District of North Carolina found for the three, non-affiliated Plaintiffs, and the Court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">issued an injunction<\/a> to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wral.com\/news\/education\/judge-unc-allow-protesters-return-campus-chapel-hill-february-2026\/\">remove the campus bans<\/a>. The Plaintiffs won because they showed a \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">likelihood to succeed<\/a>\u201d on the merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Plaintiffs argued that these campus bans were an unreasonable burden on First Amendment rights, and the Court agreed after a Polk\u2019s Place forum analysis. The Court asked three questions in the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">forum analysis<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Is this protected speech under the First Amendment?<\/li><li>Is the location a public or nonpublic forum?<\/li><li>Is the restriction reasonable for the forum?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>First, because the camp was political expression, the Court wasted no time in finding that the Plaintiffs\u2019 speech was protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Second, because the University opens their campus to non-affiliated visitors, the Court found that Polk\u2019s Place is a <a href=\"https:\/\/canons.sog.unc.edu\/blog\/2022\/11\/15\/responding-to-first-amendment-audits-what-is-a-forum-and-why-does-it-matter\/\">limited public forum<\/a>. That said, the Plaintiffs were an external group, as they failed to adhere to the University\u2019s policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Third, the Court could not say that the campus bans were reasonable based on the forum\u2019s function and other related circumstances. The campus bans must be neutral and reasonable, but neither requirement was really satisfied by the University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Indeed, the University has \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">predominantly an educational purpose<\/a>,\u201d and it must be empowered to offer a reasonably safe and nondisruptive environment for the students, faculty, and staff. The University was concerned about <a href=\"https:\/\/registrar.unc.edu\/spring-2024\/\">final exams and graduation<\/a>. Moreover, the University already lifted the campus ban for the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.carolinajournal.com\/judge-blocks-uncs-ban-against-protesters-tosses-part-of-their-suit\/\">UNC-CH student<\/a>. While the three non-affiliated Plaintiffs wanted to protest at the University, the Court acknowledged they could also exercise their First Amendment rights elsewhere\u2014perhaps at <a href=\"https:\/\/policies.duke.edu\/\">Duke University<\/a> or <a href=\"https:\/\/www.meredith.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/College-Policies-and-Regulations_2025_26.pdf\">Meredith College<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the Court found that the campus bans were unreasonable because they had infinite duration, discretionary standards, and the University had no evidence to justify an endless campus ban. Additionally, these factors blurred any evidence that the campus bans were opinion neutral. Therefore, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">Court issued an injunction<\/a> to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wral.com\/news\/education\/judge-unc-allow-protesters-return-campus-chapel-hill-february-2026\/\">remove the campus bans<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There are several takeaways from the Court\u2019s recent injunction to remove the campus bans. That said, the broader takeaways are highlighted by the groups that represented the Plaintiffs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>An <a href=\"https:\/\/www.acluofnorthcarolina.org\/press-releases\/judge-orders-unc-to-list-campus-bans-for-protesters\/\">ACLU of North Carolina Staff Attorney<\/a> said this was a reminder that public universities are not immune from First Amendment scrutiny, and they have a \u201cunique role\u201d in free speech.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>An <a href=\"https:\/\/www.acluofnorthcarolina.org\/press-releases\/judge-orders-unc-to-list-campus-bans-for-protesters\/\">Emancipate NC Staff Attorney<\/a> claimed the First Amendment has been under siege, and this was truly a \u201csignificant victory.\u201d<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>A <a href=\"https:\/\/www.acluofnorthcarolina.org\/press-releases\/judge-orders-unc-to-list-campus-bans-for-protesters\/\">Muslim Advocates Senior Staff Attorney<\/a> said speech in opposition to the genocide in Gaza should have never been silenced.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The University should consider the more practical implications of the injunction. Quite importantly, the University\u2019s policies were not actually unconstitutional. Instead, the campus bans on the Plaintiffs were merely <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">too strong<\/a>. In March 2026, with more conflict in the <a href=\"https:\/\/apnews.com\/live\/iran-war-israel-trump-03-03-2026\">Middle East<\/a>, this University and others in the United States are wise to establish more definite timelines for campus bans with clear standards, and they should increase evidentiary requirements to justify the campus bans. As <a href=\"https:\/\/canons.sog.unc.edu\/blog\/2022\/11\/15\/responding-to-first-amendment-audits-what-is-a-forum-and-why-does-it-matter\/\">limited public forums<\/a>, these precautions would enable them to avoid constitutional claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On April 30, the University removed the camp. Administrators arrived before business hours to distribute letters from Chancellor Roberts. In short, the letters expressed the University\u2019s concerns, referenced the University\u2019s pertinent policies, and demanded that the protestors leave. If protestors refused to leave, they would be arrested, suspended, or expelled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Shortly after, the Plaintiffs were issued <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">trespass citations and campus bans<\/a>. Later, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.carolinajournal.com\/judge-blocks-uncs-ban-against-protesters-tosses-part-of-their-suit\/\">student from UNC-CH<\/a> would have her campus ban removed, and she was permitted to return to the University. But the University enforced the campus bans against the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.carolinajournal.com\/judge-blocks-uncs-ban-against-protesters-tosses-part-of-their-suit\/\">three, non-affiliated protestors<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.carolinajournal.com\/judge-blocks-uncs-ban-against-protesters-tosses-part-of-their-suit\/\">Plaintiffs expressed<\/a> they want to return to the University to protest. Thus, in March 2025, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.carolinajournal.com\/judge-blocks-uncs-ban-against-protesters-tosses-part-of-their-suit\/\">the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit<\/a> against the University, represented by the groups mentioned in the <em>Overview<\/em>. In April 2025, the three non-affiliated Plaintiffs <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncmd.uscourts.gov\/judges-info\/opinions\">asked the Court to remove the campus bans<\/a>. The Court did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By: Gabriel Roberts, Vol. 24 Staff Writer Overview Campus bans from the 2024 pro-Palestine protests have been lifted across the United States, and this time, it\u2019s at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In Dames v. Roberts, the Middle District of North Carolina issued an injunction that removed campus bans for three protestors. <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/encampment-in-the-quad-federal-court-removes-campus-ban-on-pro-palestine-protestors-at-unc-ch%ef%bf%bc\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[396,400],"tags":[402,404,133,152,401,305,403],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5746"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5746"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5746\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5749,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5746\/revisions\/5749"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5746"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5746"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5746"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}